Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister explain why his government is cutting the entitlement to the partner service pension for spouses of Australian veterans who can no longer work?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am unaware of the measure to which the honourable member refers.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not. So I would be happy to provide an answer later in question time or as the information becomes available to me. If instead the member would prefer to address the question to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, I am sure he would be happy to answer.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the Prime Minister wishes to pass the question to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, we would be happy to have the answer. It is amazing that he does not know his own budget.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Mackellar will resume her seat.

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for her question. The member refers to a minor amendment to the budget.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members—Minor!

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, it is minor because this measure impacts on a small number of veterans’ spouses in a situation where the circumstances they face have in fact changed. There are two aspects to this. One is the issue of the change in the age of eligibility for the partner service pension—moving it from the age of 50 up to the situation of when the actual service pensioner themselves qualifies. That is bringing it in line with the advantage and the recognition of the service of veterans as it is currently understood. The circumstances are that there was a study done back in the thirties with respect to—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the basis of the eligibility. If you understood anything about this issue, you would know what we are talking about here. The circumstances were that there was a study done into the life expectancy of members of the First AIF. It showed that there ought to be a premium as a result of service because of the impacts of service. That premium was recognised at that time and the premium was some five years. That gave service pensioners—those with qualifying service—access to the service pension, which is effectively the age pension in their case, some five years earlier.

However, the circumstances around partners of those service pensioners is such that they access it at 50. It is an anomaly. It is a situation where, by changing this anomaly, it affects somewhere in the region of fewer than 400 people in the next year. I share the concerns of the shadow minister with respect to the impact on those who are dealing with veterans who have severe disabilities. The usual way of noting the question of severe disabilities with respect to veterans is the disability pension rate that they receive. If you are a TPI or a partner of a TPI then you still get access to the service pension, as you do now. There is no change. If you are in a situation where you have dependent children and therefore there is a significant carer’s role in that respect, there is no change. If you are in a position whereby—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is on relevance—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The question was in order and the minister’s answer is in order. It would assist if the chamber heard the answer in quietness.

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The fact of the matter is that the impact here will not be severe for many veterans. There are alternative sources of income support for those who may be caring for a veteran.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It would really assist—and now I have the right word—if the minister were heard in silence.

Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He’s not telling the truth.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Gilmore is simply not assisting by that, and I will warn her.

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If a veteran is not a special rate pensioner but has significant disabilities, there will be access to carers payment, which is the same with respect to the actual payment level. There are alternatives there for people if they require it.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You just shafted them.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Paterson!

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He shafted them.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Paterson is warned!

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might add that anyone who is already in receipt of this payment with respect to their age will not be affected at all. The second measure relates to the question of a change of circumstances around an individual whose marriage has broken down. Currently, if a veteran and their partner were in a de facto relationship and that relationship ends, the circumstances are that a partner service pension ceases to be paid. With this change, if a marriage breaks down, if there is clear evidence of that breakdown and if the breakdown is in excess of 12 months, the situation for those veterans and their partners will be the same as for those who are currently in de facto relationships. The situation there again does not affect a large number of veterans and their partners. And do not forget that, in this situation, they are no longer their partners. We have occasions at the moment on which a partner service pension is being paid to more than one partner—in some cases, two or more partners—of a particular veteran. Paying a compensation benefit in that circumstance is not reasonable and not fair.

The other thing we need to remember here is that if someone is planning retirement at the age of something like 50 on the partner service pension, which is effectively the age pension, and in a situation where they are not calling on alternative possibilities with respect to work, they may be severely impacted in their long-term ability to financially support themselves into retirement. These changes are sensible. They are in line with community standards and, I might add, they are part of what this government has had to do to do something about the overall budget situation that we have been left with. I think that, in those circumstances, it is a reasonable position to be taken. There are safety measures in place for those who would be affected and, in those circumstances, I support the measure.